I agree with the first sentence, however socialism cannot work without some sort of social interactions, social contracts, social structures, social
organization, etc. What you're describing is nothing but anarchy, socialism cannot work without a society, people need to be socially engaged and
willing to work as a group rather than as individuals. If the mere existence of a state/government equates to fascism than we're all fascists, so I
take that as a very inaccurate way of describing what fascism is.

Like I said before, there is no socialist or communist nation, nor has one ever existed, that has a classless society and a small or non-oppressive
government. Exactly the opposite is almost always the case, they are highly centralized dictatorships which invade on every aspect of peoples lives,
because socialists tend to believe they have a right to tell other people how to live in the name of "bettering the community".

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
If we're going to talk about left and right ideologies we need to be very clear about what we mean by left and right.

That is what we are doing.

Even Mussolini himself seems to be saying socialism is a leftist thing, and I think we can all agree on that.

Of course.

Therefore, capitalism must be a right wing thing, which I believe we can also agree on. Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of
leftism, yet I know of no other economic system which emphasizes individualism more than capitalism. Competition allows variation to exist and allows
us to truly express ourself and take control of our own path, rather than have our path chosen for us.

You said "Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism" liberalism isn't leftism so how did you come to that conclusion?

I await your wisdom with great anticipation.

I thought you were reading the The Doctrine of Fascism.

My take on it is that it is really just a confession/assertion on what government has always been. The government can pay lip service to individual
freedom all it wants but when it comes down to it, they are the controlling body of a nation.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while
preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.

You said "Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism" liberalism isn't leftism so how did you come to that conclusion?

Well Mussolini states that fascism is something which tends to the right, saying that it's opposed to "socialism, liberalism, democracy", terms
typically associated with the left. However, he's talking about liberalism in the classical sense, in a way that promotes individual rights and
freedom much like libertarianism. So he's essentially claiming that individualism is something that falls on the left, along with socialist and
democratic ideologies. Why then do most libertarians lean to the right?

The government can pay lip service to individual freedom all it wants but when it comes down to it, they are the controlling body of a
nation.

The reality of the situation is this: Mussolini's definition of fascism is now clearly obsolete. If we were to go by his definition then fascism
exists the moment governments are created because they require some form of collectivism to function. In fact I think the way Mussolini defines
fascism just further strengthens my argument that a fascist government can be left or right, it can occur when any government gets out of control and
abuses their power over individuals.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
So he's essentially claiming that individualism is something that falls on the left, along with socialist and democratic ideologies.

No he doesn't. Just because he utters them in the same breath (figuratively) doesn't mean that he claims that they are on the same side of the
political spectrum.

The reality of the situation is this: Mussolini's definition of fascism is now clearly obsolete.

That's a bit of a cop out instead of just pushing for the truth, which is that people are misusing the term.

If we were to go by his definition than fascism exists the moments governments are created because they require some form of collectivism to
function. In fact I think the way Mussolini defines fascism just further strengthens my argument that a fascist government can be left or right, it
can occur when any government gets out of control and abuses their power over individuals.

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual. Oversimplifying it to
just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the popular thing to do.

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual. Oversimplifying it to
just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the popular thing to do.

You know how many people fascists killed because they didn't fit in or follow the doctrine? What's next? You claim that didn't happen?

That's a bit of a cop out instead of just pushing for the truth, which is that people are misusing the term.

No, the fact is the English language changes and evolves. Even though I may not like the modern definition of liberal it doesn't mean I'm going to go
around using the term in the classical sense, I will say classical liberal if that's what I mean. The topic at hand here is Google trying to redefine
the modern meaning of the word.

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual.
Oversimplifying it to just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the
popular thing to do.

Clearly there are several aspects to fascism, I didn't say oppression was the only factor. I'm not trying to use the term "pejoratively", I could just
as well say you're trying to prevent it from being used in ways you don't like regardless of whether it fits. I actually just realized Mussolini was a
fascist, seems kind of strange considering he knows exactly how totalitarian it is, doesn't sound much to me like he gave a crap about individuals.
Here's another good quote from him:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood,
Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life
of a people.

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is
unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle.

Once again I would like to point out that all socialist governments which attempted to achieve economic equality have never realized a classless
society. In fact the only way to achieve such equality is to enforce it with a highly centralized system, you have to force all individuals to abide
by very specific civil laws, you have to control all money flow, you have to crush the human spirit and strip nearly all individual liberty from
people to create this false utopia that can never be practically achieved. Hence, I find Mussolini's promotion of socialism as the antithesis to
fascism to be insidiously misleading.

But wanting to retain ones culture rather than allow radical changes to occur implicitly places one on the right side of the spectrum as far as
mainstream pundits are concerned because such people will be against illegal immigration and in favor of strong border protection.

It's true that conservatives tend to lean right, but they will never go to extremes. In the case of your example of immigration, I would argue that
most conservatives would not be in favor of deporting their gardener or children's nanny, that they're paying cash, under the table.

The very word "conservative" embodies a conservative's rejection of extremism. Conservatives have found a comfortable niche and don't want their
status quo challenged. They'll fight to keep their lifestyle, move politics back to center and avoid change while considering the costs,
conservatively.

Hitler wanted to maintain tradition so that makes him a conservative. But I do understand your point though.

Hitler appealed to conservative centrists' fear of change, the change that "undesirables" bring, manipulating them to fulfill his extreme agenda. I
don't think that Germany had traditions of rounding up Jews, gays and half breed undesirable folks and exterminating them that conservative folks were
fighting to maintain.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.